Political Writings

Critical Thinking

I should be writing more about politics at this time, but the spirit just doesn't move me much anymore.  Politics is critical at this time, and people need to know that.  To be honest, I'd rather be writing another movie commentary, or working on fiction, and that means I'm forcing myself here.  My problem is, however, that all I seem capable of when it comes to the subject is a bunch of incoherent cussing and blather.  I do believe that the irrationality of the whole political scene has become so idiotic that any attempt to insert a word or two of sense and meaning simply leaves one blabbering like the baboons running the whole show.  If you need further examples of what I mean, observe the Democratic Party and its illustrious leader, Howard Dean.  I'm sure there was a time in his life when what he had to say made sense and had meaning.  But, all things considered, it simply cannot happen anymore.  It's like someone took the Democratic Party, buttered it lightly all over the political scene, then dropped it in the cat's sandbox, buttered side down, now no one will touch it…and you can hardly blame them.

I wrote that about three years ago-- http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/archives/45-Self-Government-Is-About-Not-KnowingIt-Seems.ht  In fact I wrote a lot of stuff back then, and most of it offended people because I questioned their critical thinking, if not legitimacy in their attempts at self-government.  What’s more, I still question it.  At that time, three years ago, I was questioning the American public’s unwillingness to question or even acknowledge cronyism in high places and their total ignorance of such institutions as the World Bank and the power over all the people of the planet being achieved by multinational corporations and the handful of individuals who will ultimately control the whole shooting match…stuff like that.  At present there seems to be yet another variation on our overall failure in critical thinking.

Critical thinking can be defined, at least in part, as an intellectual process of perception, analysis, evaluation, logic, experience, reasoning and credibility.  It is an extensive mental procedure, but one which much also recognize one’s own proclivity toward bias or prejudice, particularly when influenced by an indoctrination of belief systems imposed by external and coercive forces.   It must also practice a high degree of intellectual honesty and humility, specifically a willingness to admit to one’s errors in judgment and past convictions when evidence may prove one wrong.  The art of persuasion, especially as practiced by salespersons, politicians and religious leaders, I would say, is a deliberate assault upon an individual’s ability to think critically.  When one is asked to trust or have faith, particularly where the word “sacrifice” is used as some sort of glorious human virtue, and when one has bought into that line, one has relinquished their critical thinking and been enticed into intellectual surrender and mental captivity.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. -- John Adams

If ever there was a war this country fought that was truly righteous, it was the Revolutionary War.  All others may have been perpetrated under the guise of “national defense,” but beyond that virtuous sounding characterization of mass death and destruction made possible by an ignorant, gullible and nationalistic people’s sacrifice of life and fortune, it all amounts, in the long run, to imperialism in the form of multinational corporations who serve their bottom line.  It was not all so noble as we have been led to believe.  We have served the stockholders of Halliburton well and made the world safe for Monsanto, Boeing, and General Electric.  To quote a line from the Australian movie The Coca-Cola Kid, "The world will not be truly free until Coke is available everywhere."  It is the end result that matters, and the end result is a kind of international corporate feudal system.  The corporate elite are the new lords and ladies of our time, and we their surfs and servants.  What’s more, we consider it our good fortune to belong to their fiefdom.   

The John Adams quote above was appropriate at the time.  It is no longer applicable in reference to future generations.  We are the future generations for whom he studied war and politics (although, in fact, he did have a classical education as well, as did virtually all of our founding fathers).  The great interest in higher education today seems to be the MBA, the Master of Business Administration, which includes the ultimate academic achievement of our present president.  It is a degree of variable time and effort conceived in the USA for the sole purpose of teaching the youth of the nation how to perform in business.  This is not the pursuit of any particular business, not a business of personal interest and youthful aspiration, just business in general.  That is a significant issue.  I think it says a lot about the degree of personal enthusiasm, or lack thereof, in learning a distinctive profession that stimulates the ambition of natural and inherent talents that have excited the souls of inspired and creative young people down through the ages.  Today, it seems, the pursuit of an indeterminate and nameless business, for the sake of mastering the business of business, has replaced the time-honored aspirations of the hopeful and gifted youth of our nation. 

Where can such indifference toward intellectual and cultural values lead us as a nation?  Whatever happened to art, literature, drama, history, philosophy and all the studies in all the humanities?  Perhaps they have little to offer in an increasingly mind-numbing, anti-intellectual, corporate society where the cold, hard, and sometimes deadly teachings of war, politics and business seem to be the only way to succeed, if not simply survive.  There seems to be a growing absence of learning that might appeal to our nobler dreams, a tendency toward the dulling of the mind and imagination and a conformity to the mundane and commonplace with profit the only remaining motivating goal of the human spirit. 

Beyond the type of education one pursues there is also the significant difference between an education received and what one has actually learned.  I have known, for instance, persons with masters degrees in theology who do not know what a scientific theory is, who have a dearth in classical literature and art appreciation, and not only don’t have a clue about higher math but can’t balance a checkbook.  We’re talking about an individual who has been highly educated with the evidence to prove it on paper.  Theology, of course, is in a class by itself when it comes to an absence of factual material and an inadequacy in the confrontation of reality.  When it comes to religious studies, however, there are big differences between whether one is studying the historical and social aspects of comparative religions, such as a course by someone like Joseph Campbell, or if one is studying the mythology of someone’s bible as if it were actual history complete with an absolute moral code as decreed by God himself and enforced with horrific penalties.

The blind belief in those stories, particularly in the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible we so cherish as the first, last and only word on the absolute truth, is, without a doubt, one of, if not the greatest failings and sticking points to attaining rational, realistic, logical, critical, and just plan grownup thinking this country has ever suffered.  What we have here is a Bronze Age document, written in the words and concepts of the superstitious fears and dreadful unrealities from a primitive time of gross ignorance and blind sacrifice to unseen powers. 

They did not know the earth was round, so it had four corners with a sun that came and went; they did not know the earth was several billion years old, so it calculates out at about 6,000 years if you rely on historical record as found only in the Bible; they had no concept of the origin and development of the universe, the planet or the life thereon, so it was created by a super being in six days; and they did not know what was “up there,” so they designated it “Heaven,” and they did not know what was “down there,” so they designated it “Hell.”  Today we know, for the most part, the reality of these ancient myths, beliefs and misconceptions.  We have been “up there,” and we know it is not Heaven, just space and other planets.  We have drilled to great depths, and using sophisticated equipment and procedures have otherwise determined what is “down there,” and it is not Hell.  Even so these superstitions continue into our present society to the point they infringe on rational thinking, even in high places.

In the Bible we have a day the sun stood still; a snake that not only talked but corrupted mankind from that day forward in so doing; several generations of the first men on earth who lived for hundreds of years; a man who lived for a time in the belly of a large fish (usually referred to as a whale); a sea that parted so a fleeing people could conveniently cross; an ark that carried two of all living animals for forty days and forty nights and then some, plus many more such tales of totally unbelievable and impossible happenings.  Ultimately we are to believe that in the final chapter everyone who ever lived, died and decayed, will be physically resurrected and judged on the basis of whether or not he or she believed in another man who lived, died and was resurrected, evidently before he rotted.  All this we must believe as the literal truth or end up “down there.”  At the same time we have no doubt that fairy tales, zombie movies, and other people’s myths (such as the Hopi legends, for instance) are all make believe.  If nothing else, I think it incredibly arrogant to believe that only our fanciful myths are real events and everyone else is being childish.

We’re talking now about Twenty-first Century people here—two of which are running for President of the United States.  First of all—the matter of church and state aside (for the moment)—we have two guys who freely admit they are “imperfect” and have moral failings, but—and it’s a big “but”—they believe in Jesus, therefore they are forgiven and saved.  It’s as simple as that.  No sweat.  McCain: “It means I'm saved and forgiven.”  Obama: “As a starting point, it means I believe in -- that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him.”  These are two men trying to qualify themselves to a multitude of people of many religions.  This is a nation of many religions that are not Christian, and a nation whose Bill of Rights begins with the statement, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  These are two guys, running for President of the United States who seem to believe their Christian beliefs are a necessary qualification for that office.  How did that happen?  This has never been an issue nor should it ever be.

In the words of McCain, “I have attended North Phoenix Baptist Church for many years, and the most important thing is that I'm a Christian."  The emphasis is mine.  It says a lot.  His religion, being Christian, that is, is the most important thing.  It means it is a good thing he is not of some other religion or none at all.  In other words, despite Article Six of our Constitution, he has declared he has passed a religious test…in his opinion.  The way it looked to me—and you can say it was just me—we had a whole program devoted to the passage of a religious test by both presidential candidates.  I’m sure no one else, or very few if any, saw it as such.  But then, I might wager, very few know Article Six of the Constitution either.  And that, again, is one of our great failings as a self-governing people.

Then you have to wonder how the Founding Fathers viewed religion, especially when we seem to be advancing the argument that this is and always has been a Christian nation.  What exactly were their hopes or even predictions as regards Christianity, belief in the Holy Bible, and religion in general? 

Here’s a few quotes about the Bible by Thomas Paine:

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book.

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book.

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

And here’s a quote by James Madison, our fourth President, on the clergy:

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

On the matter of state-supported chaplains in Congress, he said:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

And then there was Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, who had a great deal to say:

I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives.... It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

On the Bible and its primitive if not childish wording and, most of all, its priesthood:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

Speaking of ridicule, Bill Maher has had a few things to say about the Bible:

"I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no. I believe there's some force. If you want to call it God... I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books. I think that the people who think God wrote a book called The Bible are just childish. Religion is so childish. What they're fighting about in the Middle East, it's so childish. These myths, these silly little stories that they believe in fundamentally, that they take over this little space in Jerusalem where one guy flew up to heaven…no, no, this guy performed a sacrifice here a thousand million years ago. It's like, ‘Who cares? What does that have to do with spirituality, where you're really trying to get, as a human being and as a soul moving in the universe?’ But I do believe in a God, yes.”

Although not an atheist (and I personally understand and appreciate his point of view), he makes it quite clear his objection is the Bible itself, its childish stories of impossible events, and most of all the foolishness of those who believe it literally.  One of his favorite lines seems to be about the “talking snake,” a reference to the Book of Genesis and the Garden of Eden when Eve was tempted by a serpent.  (It is difficult to say “talking snake” with a straight face, I’ve noticed.)  The greater matter is, no doubt, the still existing idea that this particular myth is literal truth and thus invalidates the whole of the theory of evolution.  In that one matter alone, the Garden of Eden versus evolution, we have one of the most outstanding and outrageous examples of Twenty-first Century, presumably educated human beings, failing utterly at critical thinking.  They have simply abandoned all rational and realistic concepts to perpetuate a Bronze Age fairy tale in the hopes of going “up there” when they die.  If there is a God, and if he will pass judgment, I suspect he will say to these true believers, “How fucking stupid can you get?”  Then they will stand judged…finally.

Scott McClellan’s Book

Has anyone noticed that CNN seems to be so highly critical of Scott McClellan’s newly released so-called “tell-all” book that they appear to be driving him to admit some sort of shame and remorse?  Regarding the fact that McClellan was defending the Administration while he was press secretary, which everyone should think was his job, and is now revealing the truth, or as otherwise stated, his impressions and opinions, Wolf Blitzer asks: “Are you sorry? Do you want to say you're sorry to the American people? Do you want to apologize?”  It is one in a long list of accusatory questions presented only as numbnuts Wolf can manage in what should have been an otherwise enlightening interview about this goddamn Administration that thinking people have come to realize cannot be trusted.

It is easy to find critics of the book, and CNN (I’m not sure about other networks, but would bet they are similar) has gone out of their way to dig them all up and have them repeat their condemnations redundantly, which is typical of most news networks.  One condemnation is that he is “cashing in” on the position he held by writing the book now.  Granted, he must be making some good bucks.  So what?  I do not find that nearly as offensive as this Administration, and its cronies, who are cashing in on the couple of trillion bucks of our tax dollars spent on a long, seemingly endless, bloody, destructive and meaningless war.  How come CNN isn’t questioning that degree of “cashing in”?  Nobody goes after anyone in high places anymore, just us poor slobs who don’t advertise on big network news shows.  (Have you noticed who sponsors these big news shows on CNN?  Coal, oil and natural gas companies, for instance, not to mention Lockheed Martin, Boeing and so on.)

The odd thing is that none of McClellan’s critics has yet accused him of lying or deceit in any manner.  In other words there’s no denying what he has to say about the President and his henchmen is true.  What he has been accused of is betrayal of and disloyalty to an Administration that itself has been deceitful and untruthful with the public.  It seems McClellan’s real motivation is discovering, somewhere along the way, that he was being used and that his “loyalty” was being betrayed.

But hey, if nothing else, it’s one hell of an advertising campaign for his book.

Despite the hype and blathering excitement of a deliriously giddy news media, the real war of consequence is not a senseless and petty game of non-relevant matters between the Democratic candidates, it’s in Iraq where American blood and treasure are flowing daily.  The real war, which should still be the pertinent news, has nothing to do with much of anyone but George W. Bush, the war profiteers such as Halliburton, Chaney’s company, and those neoconservatives at the Project for a New American Century, the people who wanted Iraq, probably for its oil, but were obviously ignorant or mindless or maybe didn’t give a damn about the consequences of such a war.  These were the people, such as William Kristol, a co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and conservative writer for publisher Rupert Murdock who owns Fox News among other ultra conservative outlets, who claimed that the oil in Iraq would pay for the war. 

Speaking of which, if this war was about oil, and it probably was, how come gasoline is now pushing four bucks a gallon?  Was that an intended consequence, and if so, why?  Or did the powers-that-be get it all wrong?  But that’s not the big issue here…not that it isn’t a big issue.  At present I am simply amazed that the American public continues to put up with a moron who would be king…well, dictator, anyway.  A few years ago I wrote rather extensively on why the hell we went into Iraq and how incredibly stupid our president is, two more or less related items of interest. 

The stupidity of our president is, of course, directly related to the intelligence of our voting public; we did elect him twice.  Was that what one might call “democracy in action”?  Or would mindless, frightened sheep be a better term?  It was fear and fear alone that made the president’s case for a second term.  Falling for that ploy is not, in my opinion, very bright.  It is one reason I can find it easy to relate what we like to think of as “democracy” to mob rule.  If we are a government of the people, electing a stupid leader is a good indicator of the general intelligence of those who elected him.  And I do realize that is not a popular sort of thing to say.  No one wants to take that much responsibility for our so-called government of the people…it could make them look as stupid as their leaders obviously are.  We’d rather just think the president and all his men and ladies are the stupid ones.

The realization of our glorious leader’s intelligence should have become obvious when he declared war on the sovereign country of Iraq, which represented no threat to us.  Most of all, as we found out quite some time back and have since forgotten, there were no weapons of mass destruction.  That is why we went into Iraq.  It was a lie, of course, one of the first big ones, but the stupid part is that we have forgotten why we went into Iraq, which also means we have forgotten we were lied to.  That was never the real reason, of course, but it was the one we seemed to believe at the time.  We should also be aware that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the events of September 11, nor was Iraq a “breeding ground for terrorists,” at least not until we took out its legitimate government, sent it into chaos and anarchy, which ended up an invitation for real terrorists who then did, in fact, join in the fray and keep the whole thing going in a virtually non-winnable and endless conflict.   

All that sort of makes you wonder why we really invaded Iraq in the first place.  Inasmuch as we can write off all the official reasons as outright lies, and the “oil” thing, which seemed like a good guess at the time, isn’t paying off—at least for the American public—I’d say we need to look for another reason.  And where to start on that search?  Who is benefiting the most?  Who benefits from the cost of the war?  Well, Dick Chaney’s old company of Halliburton is one.  But who benefits from the big oil game, which is now selling at over one hundred bucks a barrow?  Dare we say the Saudis? 

Now consider this: George Bush, as a would-be business man—the oil business in Texas—has run a couple of small-time oil businesses into the ground.  And who financed those losing businesses of his?  The Saudis.  Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (available on DVD) covers the whole story much better than I could even hint at it, but it does question—and answer—why an oil-rich country like Saudi Arabia would back a small-time loser like George W. Bush.  Look at current events, and gas prices, to realize that one.

The sad news is that George W. Bush, who ran a couple of small-time businesses into the ground, is now the president of the United States.  Those are a couple of things you really don’t want to have to say in the same sentence, but damn, look where we stand economically after two terms.

As I said, I did post considerably about George W. Bush a few years ago, and in particularly about his obvious lack of intellect.  A nice guy to have a beer with? 

Maybe.  Someone to lead the country?  Give me a break.  How did that happen?

Anyway, here is one of my commentaries from three years ago, which, unfortunately, is still timely: http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/archives/38-The-Idiot-King.html   The preceding link is to one article only.   I would like to remind readers that they can access the whole blog with this link: http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/index.php?frontpage  The link to political commentary only is here: http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/categories/2-Political-Writings    And the link to movie commentaries only is here: http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/categories/1-Movies

The Lies We Live With

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."  That was one of the big lies George W. Bush didn’t quite get away with, at least not ultimately.  It was known when he said it that the information was a forgery but he was trying to justify an invasion of Iraq at the time, which was no threat to us and which, ultimately, he did get away.  He lied to us about our reasons for the invasion of a sovereign nation, and we, and Congress, believed him.  If we and Congress did not believe him but went along with it anyway, then we were incredibly stupid as a self-governing people with elected representatives.  One should also note the great number of senators and representatives today who regret their support of the war and plead their innocence by saying they believed Bush.  If so, why do they not move to impeach him?  Perhaps it is a given that politicians will lie, even when it destroys another nation…and possible ours as well.

(His lies, incidentally, should not be confused with anything really stupid that might be misinterpreted, such as: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” President Bush - August 5, 2004) 

Then he said: “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."  From what I see on the news you would think we went into Iraq to fight Al Qaida and the very people who brought down the Twin Towers.  What an illusion that has become.  True, Iraq is full of terrorists today.  The truth is, however, there were none there when we invaded.  We went there to destroy the “weapons of mass destruction” that belonged to Saddam Hussein before he destroyed America with them.  What a grand lie that was.  The entire pretense of invading Iraq was a lie.  There were no weapons of mass destruction, and there were no terrorists.  We created that particular breeding ground for terrorists.  We created that nightmare.  Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have since died in that war.  It never should have happened.  Let’s just not forget it was based on a bunch of lies told to us by George W. Bush and associates.  What is worse, he continues to lie.  What is even worse, we continue to let him get away with it.  That, of course, we could drop in the lap of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, but we do not.  We have our bread and circuses, so we stay fat and happy never dreaming of a day of reckoning, which is bound to come.

Bush, it is predicted by many, is going to go down in history as the worst president yet, as well he should.  But who put him there...twice?  (If you want to blame the Supreme Court, then why did we the people let them get away with it?)  And why the hell wasn't he impeached before it was too late?  (We should ask the Madam Speaker that one.)  Whatever happened to a government of a people?  As for the cost of the war, constitutionally speaking, only Congress gets to write the checks...or declare war, for that matter.  Theoretically speaking, we put those people there because they represent what we expect of government.  Statistically, Congress is terribly unpopular at present, but with whom is it unpopular?  With the people who sent them all to Congress.  Who, ultimately, has to take the responsibility, or is people's government just a well-hyped delusion?  Does this “people’s government” actually know its place in governing?  With a government of the people, by the people and for the people, will they, as the real government, actually make the changes they expect of some damn sweet-talking politician?  (And how come none of these candidates for President have said a word about our lost civil liberties, which is the worst of it?)  Frankly, I don't think anyone's been paying attention let alone taking responsibility.

Bush himself probably didn’t have a clue what the invasion of Iraq would cost and, obviously, didn’t give a damn.  The Pentagon estimated $50 billion.  Bush’s head of White House National Economic Council, Lawrence Lindsey, probably trying to be what he figured was honest, estimated it would run between $100 and $200 billion, and was fired by Bush for his apparent honesty.  By the time of the invasion the Defense Department had raised the estimate to as high as $95 billion (strangely just under Lindsey’s low figure).  Good ol’ unilateral, imperialistic, preemptive-military-invasion, Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine ) who uses spit to comb his hair and resigned in disgrace for ethics violations after a short term as President of the World Bank, coming straight from The Project for a New American Century (along with Chaney, Rumsfeld and a bunch of others) said not to worry because oil revenues would pay for the war.  (Perhaps that was the intent, but it sure as hell didn’t go that way.  Instead we have the taxpayers giving billion, maybe trillions, to no bid Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, and various other private contractors and mercenaries.)

It is costing half a trillion bucks already, but realistic estimates, all things considered, including the medical cost for veteran treatment and their ongoing compensation, and not including the cost to Iraq itself, set the figure at $3 trillion (a number most people do not begin to comprehend).  It is said to be second only to WWII in cost, and second longest after Vietnam.  But it isn’t over yet.

I’ve only cited a couple of major lies of George W. Bush, broadly speaking, his reasons for invading Iraq and the cost thereof.  His other lies are multitudinous and would take a couple of volumes just to mention.  If someone has not been keeping track, just go to Google and type in “Bush lies.”  It’s as easy as that.  Here’s an interesting couple of sites, however: Bush Keeps War Cost Under Wraps is an article pointing out how Bush continues his deception on the cost of this war: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020808J.shtml  Here’s an interesting chart on what Bush has done to our country in seven years if you doubt his presidency is leading to disaster: http://bp3.blogger.com/_akLbxNKanGc/R8khvE0MG2I/AAAAAAAABHk/05lB35cayog/s1600-h/rchart4.gif

It certainly isn’t a matter of Bush being the only politician or even president to ever lie to us.  Someone could write a book on the history of presidential lies in this country and the sometimes disastrous consequences.  The point here is that Bush is upon us now and his lies are proving to bring about the most disastrous military, economic, civil liberties, human rights conditions we’ve ever had to deal with as a “free people.”

At present the Department of Justice and the FBI are investigating Roger Clemens for perjury accusations, based on Congressional investigations and hearings.  The way I see it is that Clemens is one of dozens of accused athletes standing his ground against that eternal busybody, do-gooder Congressman Henry A. Waxman and Senator George J. Mitchell and his “Report.”

The real problem, as I further see it, is that Congress ought to be devoting all the hype and hoopla to exposing the lies this administration has told us—serious lies that affect the lives of all of us—and the impeachment of our fascist leaders, starting with Bush and Chaney, who are trashing our rights under the Constitution and selling us all lock, stock and barrow down the river to their cronies who run multinational, multibillion dollar corporations.  But what is Congress doing in our name?  They are seriously taking their time and keeping our attention on a bunch of ball players, American sports heroes, at a time when we need all the heroes we can get.  Meanwhile the real villains not only remain in power but are using that power to trash a once great nation.  And what are we the people doing about that?  That is the real question.

The Sorry State of the Union

To listen to Bush tell us about his fuzzy notion of the state of our union, you have to wonder where he’s been the last seven years, six of which, according to Romney, he has “kept us safe.”  That overlooks the question where the hell was he when not only the twin towers were hit, but where the hell was he and everyone else (and where are they now) when the third tower, all sixty stories, which wasn’t hit, collapsed in an identical manner at the same time.  But that’s another story—and one you’re never going to hear much about.  The simple statement of “kept us safe,” is the real key to the whole state of the union.  We are a people in fear.  That fear has been played like an instrument to enchant us out of our natural rights as a self-declared free people.

The real issue, at least at this time, is the very real state of our union, which, quite probably, has not been so bad off in quite some time.  In our history of presidents, Bush is making Herbert Hoover look good.  In fact, Hoover was more a victim of circumstances.  Today, circumstances are a victim of Bush.  Hoover, of course, resided over the great depression of 1929, the same year he took office, his term beginning a downward spiral from what had been pretty good times up till then.  The fact that the depression began immediately after he took office pretty much says it wasn’t really his doing that caused it.  In Bush’s case, however, considering times weren’t so bad when he took over, the fact that it took seven years to get us into this mess, likewise, pretty much proves it’s his fault.  Of course, it’s not his fault alone—let’s not forget Congress.

Presidents can’t really screw things up alone; they need Congress, at least in the beginning.  By beginning, I mean they can’t just walk in and become a dictator; they need to have a Congress that will roll over for them and let it happen.  After that, then we can start blaming the scoundrel at the top.  But let’s not forget this Congress could have stopped him at many points along the way, even impeached him, tried and convicted him of high crimes and misdemeanors, and ultimately relieved the country of him, but Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, ruled that out a long time ago.  I personally hold her responsible for not only Bush’s failure to take action on behalf of the wellbeing of the American people, but for his more overt acts of selling out our interests to his crony’s in the corporate world. 

If nothing else, one has to ask: Where did all that money spent in Iraq go?  (Later on we can ask why and how gas got to be over three bucks a gallon.) 

The War has cost us, as tax payers (which we tend to forget, even though it is always our money out of our pocket) in the hundreds of billions, and has virtually bankrupted the country and left us without the resources to finance more needed projects, such as maintaining a crumbling infrastructure, education and health care.  What has not yet been calculated is the cost of benefits to veterans and other unforeseen consequences, not to mention the cost of a proposed rebuilding of Iraq…once we thoroughly destroy it.  Among our ongoing problems, as citizens, is that we do not comprehend either high dollar amounts or the fact that the government is spending our money.  We are talking about thousands of dollars that has come out of each and every household in the country.

Wherever the money went, Congress, who constitutionally gets to write all the checks for expenditures, has “resolved” to let the president have his way and all that money to spend as he wishes.  The Constitution says only Congress can declare war, but this Congress passed a “resolution” to abdicate that power to the president.  We even have senators running against him who were part of that abdication and thus creation of what is nothing less than a dictatorship.

Then there’s the matter of what Bush calls “the tools to keep America safe.”  And what exactly does that mean?  It means spying on anyone he chooses, in the name of the “war on terror,” without a warrant.  It means an end to habeas corpus.  And for the first time in America, we have an argument on what constitutes torture, which means we have come to accept it as a government practice.  We are no longer a free country.  We can be spied on, arrested without a warrant, held without bail or legal representation or the right to confront our accuser, tortured or sent overseas to be held and tortured by another country, and kept in prison indefinitely without charges.  That is not a free country.  That is fascism.  That is a product of George W. Bush and his regime, and it is the product of fear.

This is the Bill of Rights I’m talking about—civil liberties of the most basic kind.  And it is the one thing no one is discussing.  It does not come up in the debates, not in the Republican debates, and not in the Democratic debates.  In the first Democratic debate the candidates were asked whether human rights or national security were more important.  They all agreed it was national security.  That’s what Bush has been telling us.  What good is security without rights?  But they say that because it’s what the people want to hear because they are frightened.  We’ve all got it backwards.  Bush played the fears engendered from 9/11 to relieve us of our rights, but it looks like that is now the new state of things.

Now there are a couple of slates full of people running for the nomination of their party to run for president, all hyping “change.”  They are hyping change because the state of the union is not what Bush would like us to think it is, and people seem to know that too. 

The irony is that the fear mongered by Bush and associates is not going to go away.  It is a much too useful tool to control the people.  It is also what caused our present sorry state of the union.

Pretty soon we’ll have an idea of who may be our next president; at least the field will be narrowed some.  We can hope things will change, but one man or one woman, no matter how sincere they may be, is not enough.  The people themselves have make things change.  They have to demand it and they have to work at it.  If not, it’s just going to keep getting worse.

The war on poverty was a war on a social condition.  That is not a war.  It's a slogan--a political slogan to justify a social experiment and empower the government to gain more control over the efforts and money of some with the objective of making dependent upon government the day-to-day lives and hopes of others, those who were deemed poor, thus "eligible" to become dependent upon government, with all the strings attached.  Some saw it as a redistribution of wealth, which is part of it, but only part of it.  It also created a great bureaucracy, the only real beneficiary of the "war on poverty."  A degree in sociology became the thing of the day (an MBA has recently taken its place, which can also be seen as a means to the redistribution of wealth, but in the other direction, as in welfare to multibillion dollar corporations, particularly if they can support war).

If you look up online the name Bastiat, you will eventually find a story about some wild hogs.  In brief, it goes like this:  There are some wild hogs that live out in the woods near a certain community.  The whole community knows about them.  They know they are totally wild and self-sufficient, and that no one can coral or tame them or even hunt them with any degree of success.  A guy comes to town and says he will make them totally tame, domesticated and otherwise under his control in relatively short order, but some time being necessary to make that happen.  Eventually the man has them all corralled and under his dominion.  How?  He gave them corn, more corn, and still more corn.  In time they stopped being self-sufficient and were totally dependent upon that corn.  So he put the corn in a coral, allowed them eat to their satisfaction and to submit their independence to their new-found need.  Then he closed the coral gate.  If you don't get it, forget about it.

Then came a war on drugs.  A war on a commodity is not a war either.  It's another political slogan defining another social experiment, justifying outrageous and otherwise unnecessary legislation.  Drugs are a commodity, subject to supply and demand, but made profitable by what the market is willing to bear.  The effective—not real—value of something is whatever buyers are willing to pay for it.  Because they were (and still are) illegal, and because there is a certain dependency which comes with the instantaneous rewards or gratification of doing drugs, the price is high, but still whatever the market will bear.  A greater supply, even though illegal, will tend to bring down the market price.  The lower price is keep profitable by a larger market, the whole of the price still being well above actual worth.

Following very quickly on the heels of the war on drugs, if not at the same time, was a war on crime (specifically the "law and order" campaign slogan of Nixon/Agnew…who both turned out to be criminals).  Crime is another social condition.  It too is not a war; it's another political slogan and social experiment further justifying more outrageous and otherwise unnecessary legislation.  The causes of crime are not easily defined and vary considerably, from an individual psychosis to a real need that cannot be satisfied legitimately, to just plain greed (mostly found in higher places but having nothing to do, in higher places, with an otherwise legitimate need).  Much of the crime was generated by the illegality of drugs and/or, necessarily, an illegal means of acquiring drugs.  Most of the crime was simply the illegal possession of drugs, but in too many cases further necessitating illegal means for buying those drugs, thus reinforcing the argument that drugs are really god-awful.

There are many theories on where drugs came from, meaning what made them so plentiful and what, further, created a demand (a demand being essential to any economic theories regarding the success of selling any commodity).  I would say there are combinations of answers to that question, number one probably being that with the end of Prohibition (another social experiment, but from which, unlike real scientific experiments, we learned absolutely nothing) it became necessary for organized crime (of the "unwanted consequences" that come of politically motivated social experiments) to find a new market…alcohol now being legal again, regulated and taxed.  Drugs were a good enterprise for organized crime, virtually a certainty, in fact.  So, while J. Edgar Hoover was out chasing the "red threat," commies, pinkos, fellow travelers, and hippies with a flower in their long hair, all the time saying there was no organized crime in America, the drug dealers--the really big ones, as in organized crime--where establishing there supply lines and market…I figure.  (Some claim that Hoover had the goods on all the politicians, but the Mob had the goods on Hoover…as in pictures of him in drag giving head to his lifetime companion, another lifelong "bachelor."  True or not, it has certain logic to it, plus some evidence--such as a closet full of dresses--and does make a good theory…all things considered.)

The war on drugs and crime gave us a whole new set of outrageous laws, part of that political slogan (aided by other such slogans as "soft on crime," meaning anyone still attempting to stay aware of civil liberties, specifically, the Bill of Rights), followed, of course, by a whole new set of social experiments.  It gave us, over a relatively short period of time, no-knock laws, absurd attempts at money-laundering laws (such as any cash transaction over ten thousand, then reduced to three thousand dollars, being immediately suspect), RICO, forfeiture laws, minimum sentences where the legislative branch ran all over the judicial branch (a violation of the balance of powers, the executive branch--DoJ--sending out federal prosecutors to impose its jurisdiction on the judicial branch), a three-strikes-you're-out law, and eventually privatized prisons and more citizens in prison, per capita, than any other country in the world…disproportionately minorities.

But hey--it's a war.  But hey, I say, it's not a damn war; it's a political slogan and another social experiment…not having learned anything at all from the big social experiment called Prohibition.

And where are we today?  We are fighting what has been billed as an endless war called the "war on terror."  Well, terror is a state of mind, just like fear or anger or grief or even happiness.  You don't declare an endless war on a state of mind.  Okay, you say, it's actually a war on terrorism.  That is actually a better term, but not the one our president and administration like to use.  So, we have to ask, what is terrorism?  Well, it works out it is just about anything they want it to be, but in reality (remember reality?) it's a tactic.  It is not an enemy you can declare war on.  It's a low budget, minimal resource and maintenance tactic used by an enemy with few resources that no real army one can face, honorably, on a battlefield. 

To digress a moment--again--I keep thinking of a line by Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean.  He is told by a dueling adversary, "I could beat you every time in a fair fight," to which Depp, the Pirate captain, says, "Well, that doesn't give me much incentive to fight fair, now does it?"  That’s what we’re up against trying to fight terrorism; we simply don’t know how.  Consequently we attempt do (not declare) war on whole nations, which necessarily has to involve a lot of innocent victims. 

We went to war because of “weapons of mass destruction” being secretly held by Saddam Hussein.  Anyone remember him or his “weapons of mass destruction”?  That is why we got into Iraq.  Does anyone remember?  Now it is a war with terrorists who showed up from all over, who weren’t there before, and who aren’t going to give up or go anywhere.  So why are we fighting this war?  It’s called “war profiteering,” hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money to big corporations who produce the machinery of death and destruction.  And if Bush has his way, next it will be big corporations to rebuild Iraq.  I could expound on that endlessly, but it’s been done quit well all over online.  Look it up. 

Where Mainstream Media Fails the Public

Maybe it's just me, but I am getting impatient with what CNN considers all the news that's fit to broadcast, particularly under the heading "Keeping them honest."  The stories they pick for that segment are dragged out, redundant, and inconsequential in the greater scheme of things, compared to what they should be covering, like war profiteering in present-day Iraq.

The latest seriously hot-sounding segment presented by CNN is going to be called "Special Investigative Unit," premiered with Christiane Amanpour as the reporter--that's the real reporter, not anchor.  The opening anchors will be Anderson Cooper and Soledad O'Brien.  I can't help but wonder where they will go with a gutsy title like that.  Will it ever touch on the politics of war profiteering and the billions in our tax dollars paid to family and friends of the administration?  Frankly, I doubt it.  You have to go to the Internet to find the real stuff: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1025-21.htm  And therein lies the great failing of mainstream news.

Why am I picking on CNN again?  Because it's the only mainstream news broadcast I consider adequate enough to watch.  The others aren't worth the time…in my opinion.  As for CNN, maybe I'm still disturbed by the disappearance of Aaron Brown and Peter Arnett from their stable of numerous young and pretty anchors and their real reporters in the field.  And CNN does have some of the best reporters around, which once included Peter Arnett who brought the world the first Gulf War single-handedly and a great boon to cable TV (I like many others, never had cable until that broadcast straight from Baghdad).  He also won a Pulitzer Prize reporting from Vietnam where he originated the expression "We had to destroy the village to save it," quoting a general.  Ironically he was eventually fired by all of his American employers because he interviewed the Iraqi News Service, which is, no doubt, the sort of move that keep him in country in the first place. 

Today I have no doubt that Christiane Amanpour, John King, Candy Crowley, Nic Robertson and a good number of other real, experienced investigative reporters are quite capable of finding and reported the real facts on any story at all.  And when it comes to real trivia, no one is as entertaining as Jeanne Moos.  I look forward to her reports.

With the exception of Lou Dobbs (granted, he does bill himself as a commentator), anchors are simply young, pretty with nice hair, are trained to speak well and are probably necessary, but otherwise a dime a dozen.  I do suspect they have some say in content, however.  If so , that would be my major complaint with anchors.  At the top of the list is Anderson Cooper (maybe Wolf Blitzer).  For some reason he just seems bent on making it all about himself, not that CNN doesn't hype his image as well.  Little comments about getting out and not just sitting behind a desk are the sort of thing that makes it about him, not the news.  That's hype too, not to mention ego.  If he does pursue stories on his own, as he implies, then he can be rightly faulted for not pursuing the bold stuff, like war profiteering and the necessary political corruption behind it.  And his "blog" is an insult to those who are pursuing and reporting the heavy stuff, like who's really getting rich off our invasion of Iraq and why they'd want to "stay the course" or escalate.  That's how they make their billions--and it is billions…our tax dollars too.

Wolf (who deserves a mention in the context of anchors who don't cut it) is a different sort of story, however.  I gave up on him election night, November, 2006.  I spent the night listening to CNN "preject" the winners.  That's the verb "preject."  Ever hear of it?  I can't believe even his producer, the guy who feeds interesting information into his ear, which in turn sounds like it came straight from Blitzer's brain, didn't tell him it is "project the winners."  Next election I'm going back to Comedy Central and Al Franken.  But that's another matter.

It's true that a kind of cult does develop around popular anchors (even Aaron Brown, which makes me a cultist too, I guess), but what we have here seems to be someone working overtime at it.  Cooper seems to be the idol of the younger set, which is okay in itself, but if so my question is: Where is he taking them?  Is he not the new young person's guide to world events?  If that is what he or CNN wants him to be, then they need to live up to the responsibility.  They need to send their real reporter out to check out the real and significant happenings, the ones you only hear about online.  But what do we get instead?  Here's a good view, online, of the matter: http://www.counterpunch.org/landau12062003.html

Cooper, of course, is a very popular anchor, sometimes called "journalist."  I do take a great chance of stirring up a lot of disagreement by not sharing the enthusiasm of his admirers.  He even has a best-selling book, Dispatches from the Edge (sounds like a rip-off of Carrie Fisher's screen play Postcards from the Edge), billed as "A Memoir of War, Disasters, and Survival," which I figure would be better billed as "Memoirs of a Kid," kind of like anyone under seventy signing Sinatra's song, "I Did It My Way.".  But that's just my rather mature viewpoint…or just plain old, maybe. 

I watched Edward R. Murrow when I was a kid myself.  Murrow, who had a good team of reporters working for him, like Cooper, brought down Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Then there were Bernstein and Woodward, who were investigative reporters themselves, who brought down Nixon.  When Cooper and his crew bring down George W Bush and his whole crooked administration, I'll be impressed…maybe even read his "memoirs."  Maybe it just disturbs me that someone is trying to be another Murrow or Woodward by hype alone, without doing what it takes to earn it.  The one big question ought to be: What big-time crooked bastard, jeopardizing the whole country, have you brought down recently?  We do need an established criteria, I do believe.

It is great that someone is "keepin' 'em honest" regarding rebuilding New Orleans, but you have to go online to find people who are reporting to the public at large whose friends and family are getting all that money spent on the still ongoing war on Iraq.  There's some good data here, for instance: